DENVER – As the election nears, proponents of granting terminally ill patients access to life-ending medication are attempting to debunk “fears” around the ballot measure.

Opponents have pushed a narrative that Proposition 106 would lead to insurance companies denying medical treatment because life-ending medication would be less expensive.

The Yes on Colorado End-of-Life Options campaign says the message is a political ploy.

“Our job, especially in the final days, is making sure that people understand what the measure is, what it does, what it doesn’t do,” said Holly Armstrong, spokeswoman for proponents.

To combat abuse, the initiative would create a felony charge for tampering with a request for medication or coercing someone into taking the medication. Insurers would be prohibited from issuing policies with conditions based on life-ending medication.

To be eligible for a prescription, patients would need to be at least 18 years old; have a prognosis of six months or less to live, confirmed by two doctors; be mentally competent; self-administer the medication; and make two oral requests, separated by 15 days, as well as a third written request, signed by at least two witnesses.

Colorado would join five other states that allow access to life-ending medication.

Opponents, however, remain skeptical.

They point to a recent story about a terminally ill California woman who claims coverage for a chemotherapy drug that could have given her more time was denied by her insurance company. The company, however, offered life-ending medication, according to Stephanie Packer, in an article on her situation.

Opponents argue that since the California End of Life Option Act took effect in June, terminally ill patients have switched from fighting their illnesses to accepting that death might be the easiest option.

“Here you have people that don’t want anything to do with doctor-assisted suicide. This isn’t something that they would want. They want to fight this, and they want to live their lives as long as they possibly can, but they don’t have that choice,” said Jeff Hunt, director of the Centennial Institute, a part of Colorado Christian University, which opposes the measure.

Proponents point out that nothing in the measure would force patients to use the medication. In Oregon, where patients have had access to life-ending medication since 1997, of the 1,545 people who requested it, approximately one-third chose not to use it.

Proponents have concerns with some circulating stories. In Packer’s case, proponents point out that her story, written by New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser, who writes a popular opinion column for the paper, was not validated.

“Opponents of Prop 106 will use any tactic, including the illness of one of their advocates, to mislead voters in Colorado,” Armstrong said.

Packer, a devout Catholic, campaigned against the California law, saying doctors should never hasten death. The chemotherapy drug requested by Packer was ultimately approved by the insurance company, according to the New York Post column.

But Hunt says Packer’s concerns are valid, adding, “This is a new thing that’s now being introduced to insurance companies. ... They may not be as explicit as they used to be about it, but there’s definitely a sense that insurance companies are denying more expensive treatments.”

The battle has been fueled by impressive fundraising, which has paid for television and other advertising, as well as public messaging through websites.

Proponents launched a website to fact-check “myths and lies” about Proposition 106, called “Facts Fight Fear.”

Opponents are using their website to point to “fatal flaws” they perceive with the measure.

No Assisted Suicide Colorado, the opposition campaign, has filed more than $2.3 million in contributions. Catholic and right-to-life organizations, including the Archdiocese of Denver and others from across the state and out of state, have kept opponents afloat.

Proponents have filed more than $5.3 million in contributions, largely from Compassion and Choices Action Network, which advocates for end-of-life options measures.

Yes on Colorado End-of-Life Options has run three television ads. The first, which aired in September, featured the story of Brittany Maynard, who gained national attention for her fight with brain cancer at the age of 29.

In 2014, Maynard was told she had six months to live. She moved to Oregon where she could use life-ending medication, and she documented her decision to do so. The videos went viral. She used the medication in November 2014.

Dan Diaz, Maynard’s husband, has campaigned in Colorado and elsewhere in support of end-of-life options measures. He lobbied Colorado lawmakers when the Legislature addressed the issue, but measures failed two years in a row, prompting the ballot question.

Another ad by proponents features a Denver man suffering from brain cancer, who says he just wants the option. The third ad highlights former Oregon Gov. Barbara Roberts, who underscores successful implementation in her state, which became the first to legalize life-ending medication.

Opponents have hit the airwaves as well, running an ad that says Proposition 106 would bring “Oregon-style assisted suicide” to Colorado.

The ad suggests that the measure would not require psychiatrist exams, or the presence of a doctor if a problem arises while self-administering the drug.

Despite the messaging from both sides, it’s difficult to say where the initiative is headed. It’s an initiative that strikes nonpartisan personal and emotional decisions.

A Colorado Mesa University-Rocky Mountain PBS Poll released in late September found Proposition 106 had a whopping 70 percent approval rate.

“This issue is so deeply personal. It’s rare that you talk about this issue where somebody doesn’t say, ‘Here’s my personal story,’” Armstrong said. “People understand how personal this is, and what it meant to their family.”

pmarcus@durangoherald.com